Picking Contenders & Pacelines

[Giahorse]

Originally Posted by Lt1

I would like to respond to FTLS question as to why some people go back for a line. When I joined the group the best of the last 3 was what I learned both at seminars and 1 on 1s with Doc. Additionally in Follow Up #81 on page 1 of the Publishers Desk Doc states that our research supported by Sport Stat proves that last race is less predictive than both the 2nd and 3rd lines back and in many cases not greater than a line 4 back. I guess what I'm trying to state is that both approaches can and do produce winners provided that viable contenders are entered into the program.

Thanks

I would also like to thank you LT1, I am learing so mucj on this site.

[Alice0607]

How many races per day do you handicap? How many tracks do you handicap per day? I usually handicap the New York circuit, So California circuit, Cd, Kee, Gp, Wo, Gg, Fg tracks.

[trotman]

FTL,
This is an exercise in futility, IMO who the hell cares who wins this one, at that price I'll go for a hotdog. This was the first thing I saw, was a no form but a chaos race that the public would be all over it. No disrespect but the one person I followed from the PIRCO days was Michael Pizolla's way of thinking, move to the next race this had nothing to offer other than a strong chance you could end up on the wrong end.

[Bill V.]

Originally Posted by trotman

FTL,
This is an exercise in futility, IMO who the hell cares who wins this one, at that price I'll go for a hotdog. This was the first thing I saw, was a no form but a chaos race that the public would be all over it. No disrespect but the one person I followed from the PIRCO days was Michael Pizolla's way of thinking, move to the next race this had nothing to offer other than a strong chance you could end up on the wrong end.

Hello Trotman

On behalf of all those who took the time and effort to present races and
ideas to this thread, especially with respect to FTL

It would be nice of you to reference which race you are commenting on.


Please provide us with exactly you want to show us and comment on

Thank You
Bill

[trotman]

Bill,
In all respect the example I was referring to was the very first race that FTL posted, Straight forward forget the race and pass. Getting involved in a race like that is senseless IMO. Even Tom Brohammer would say for what the possible return would be or what the outcome could be, just turn the page.

[Bill V.]

Thanks for the information.

The point of the first race posted here was intended to teach, using a race from an early follow up, This was to show that what was working backk then still wins today
the race is from the follow up. It was just as good a teaching tool then as it is today

The winner paid $2.20/$6.40 that is just a few cents off Doc's own minimum odds of $2.50/$7.00

When this race was first published in the follow up a 60/40 split of odds
was instructed.This is why this race is a valid Sartin methodology teaching race.
FTL goes on to show in this thread and all the threads in the teaching area,
that his guidelines and suggestions and teaching notations and comments will get you many higher priced winners.

I feel every race presented in this teaching area is justified because its
presented to teach winning consistently.

[Ted Craven]

Trotman,

Thank you for (inadvertantly) bringing up again the valuable lessons contained in the race discussed at the beginning of this Topic. The core of the Sartin Methodology is The Matchup: the central FACT of a horse race that:

'one horse goes out for the lead and the others try to catch him; if they do, he loses, if they don't - he wins'.

The opening race exercise was about identifying Running Styles, then understanding that a Lone Early horse, with no one else to pressure him, will slow down, conserve energy and stand a good chance to go wire to wire. Another adage we are smart to remember is:

'a horse runs as fast as it needs to, not as fast as it can'.

I believe that these facts about the Matchup and Running Styles are still not understood enough today. If they were understood more in 1990 (the date of that exercise race), no way would the crowd have let the horse go off at 2-1. Today, perhaps that race winner would have paid 1-1, but almost every day of the week, similar scenarios occur which pay more than 2-1, some even enough to bet another horse as a saver when uncertainties exist.

Trotman, you have been at this game for 40 years and have internalized all these truths - that's why you saw it in 20 seconds and 'moved on' (yet apparently were still unsure enough of the analysis and so declined to have taken the easy 2-1 odds). However, every week , I am in contact with newcomers to this website, to the Sartin Methodology and Matchup concepts - some of whom have only become fascinated with horse race analysis and betting for a short time (e.g. a year or less - yes, it's true: new blood!)

You will notice that this Forum is titled Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...). People need a resource today to learn the concepts you learned long ago from your various mentors (Ray Taulbot, Andy, Michael Pizzolla, etc). And that is what is happening in this particular Forum: the Basics - 101 (and more, 102 ...). A person can choose for themselves whether they have the skills at any point to decide whether a race contains too much uncertainty and too little price to risk a bet, and thus 'move on'. I submit that some (or many) would see the fit and ready Lone Early horse in that race and decide it was a good value. And from that lesson learned, look for other similar race scenarios today on which they can make similar wagers, whether at 2-1 or perhaps less - or sometimes more.

'Move on' perhaps, but only after having internalized the lesson being taught in this Topic.

Ted

[trotman]

Ted,
I could easily see the Lone Early in the 6 horse field and also figured the public to bet with both hands. That being said I passed the race because I figured the horse would go off at close to 9/5 which is a reasonable expectation and figured even if the public took a stab at something offering a price the odds may be 20% more which brings us to roughly what the horse paid. The Hat did say "It's a dang horse race" and I totally understand this is a teaching exercise for many new to the game, but a horse race is a horse race and anything can happen once the gates open. For the sake of a winner I'm not inclined to make that bet and my point. I agree that this exercise shows a simple match-up and that labelling each horse with it's proper run style is so important because many races are not as easy. At the end of the day each investment for me always must offer me more than just the winner.

[Neil S.]

I absolutely love this thread and the tremendous contribution that FTL has made. I have been using this paceline and contender method for a few months and the number of winners in the top two and three has increased dramatically.
Unfortunately my problem has and still is developing a consistent style of wagering that enables me to isolate the best wagers from my selected contenders. Most of the winners I do get as contenders are in the top two, but only on rare occasions does a true "value" horse show up here. The longer prices tend to fall a little lower in the rankings, however horses lower than level two don't win enough of the races to warrant regular wagers. Similarly an occasional longshot will show up in my top two, but these are not frequent enough to produce a consistent profit.
I have seen occasional races where the odds are 4-1 or greater in the top three which should normally be a prime wagering opportunity, however these races don't tend to produce significant results.
I have been a two horse bettor throughout, but I would be interested in what wagering strategies would be successful using this type of contender and paceline selection.

Neil

[vderdak]

FTL

B – any race where the horse made a good middle move (that’s call 1 to call 2) gaining in lengths and being within 2 lengths of the leader at the second call, even if it faded down the stretch.

Do you consider a horse which is running 3rd, 4th, or 5th 2 lengths behind at say both the 1st and 2nd calls a contender, they haven't lost lengths and they are up within 2 lengths at the 2nd call but they haven't made any middle move either, they qualify on time and distance otherwise. These are the horses which give me issues as to include as a contender or not, could you please clarify your thoughts on this for me.

Thank you,

Vince